I have a pair of QNAP NAS boxes. One at the home office and one at the commercial office. Each location backs up the local machines to the respective NAS and each night the 2 NAS boxes sync to each other. I use encrypted backups for all sensitive data. This has been working well for two years so far.Occasionally when I had an extended network outage at my office I physically transferred that NAS to the house to sync at gigabit speeds.On a given day I may gave a delta of up to 100G but usually it is much less and we'll within the network uplink capacity (2.5Gbps) to finish before the morning rush starts

The author appears to believe that old version control systems are bad because they are old.I have used ( and administered ) projects using RCS, CVS, SVN, Perforce, Clearcase, Git and VSS.RCS - Advantage: no setup necessary. I used RCS to track changes to my 140 page thesis ( latex ) during the year of writing. I can still take that tar archive and extract to any workstation, PC ( windows, mac or linux) and have full access to the revision history. No setup, dirt simple. ( of course since RCS was never designed to handle more than a single person modifying the file at a time, concepts like branching, merging etc, don't exist, but for simple single person projects, this is far better than nothing ( and vastly better than manually archiving copies when you remember to)CVS - Advantage: Supports multiple users, branching and merging (same server, DCVS variant provides some concept of distributed but should be avoided). Relatively easy to setup, and when restricted to ssh only access can be relatively secure. Disadvantage: no distributed support, very coarse security ( if you have access to the server and repository directory you have access, multiple projects on same server are clumsy to secure).SVN - better than CVS, but harder to setup ( less obvious ?). Distributed support (sort of), but no concept of locking checkouts, so not suitable for code that is not easily merged ( VHDL and Verilog can get ugly when you try to merge what appear to be trivial changes ).(CVS and SVN are pretty well supported via integration with many IDEs out of the box).Clearcase - Great big bag of hurt. Avoid this if at all possible. Advantage: Large companies ( Govm't contractors ) use this tool. Ratio of administrators to users 1:10 typically, so expensive manpower. Provides distrubuted (ish) support using Multi-Site. License costs very high. Security is laughable. Any user with network access to the server ports, and an installed licensed client (access to license server) and the ability to assume root on a unix/linux machine can perform any administrative level operations of the files. The client reported username and group membership are trusted by the server to determine access privilege.Perforce - Despite the authors grouping, P4 provides very good distributed support for controlled development projects. Using proxy servers remote access to files is pretty fast. The only tool listed so far that supports atomic checkins. If any file in the set you are submitting fails to checkin, the whole checkin fails. This may sound like a bad thing if you have never had to fix a problem where one file didn't get checked in, breaking the build. Security (access to parts of the repository) is controlled within the tool, so a fine level of granularity can be achieved. Account management can be done directly in perforce by the admin ( passwords stored locally ), or can be setup to use ldap/kerberos/Active Directory for added trust.VSS - Small bag of hurt. Small bag because it worked so poorly that we never used it for large projects. Nothing good to say about this, just say no.Git - I haven't used this enough to know if I like it or not. Having the repository replicated at each remote leaf (user) is nice for the distributed development, but for projects requiring close control of the source code this can be nightmarish. Since every remote site has a copy of the whole history, fixing the problem when Johnny accidentally checks in code from projectX that contractually cannot be shared with projectY can suck.

My only real complaints with MSE:1. On a single core Celeron (2GHz) system it takes 100% of the CPU when running the live (background) checking option.2. After scanning a known infected disk it found 14 infected files. Running AVG on the same disk found 2 more files, so although not a scientific analysis, I was inclined to go with AVG.

Unfortunately as most of these tools are only really useful if run in "live" mode ( constant background checking ), they are not suitable on any systems lacking multiple cpu cores.

If the UN were the organization that we wish that it were, this would be a fine idea.Unfortunately, the politics of the UN would likely create a complete mess of the whole thing, resulting in the creation of a parallel system as folks tried to route around the problems caused. They don't have the best track record with managing things ( UNICEF is probably their best managed organization, and since it is ostensibly a children aid charity, it is difficult to politicize what it does (ie, it would not look good to deny aid to a country's children as punishment )).Just look at the mess many ISPs have created by abusing their DNS services, and the rise of OpenDNS as an alternative to avoid them.If the system were broken, then by all means change it, but since the choice here seems to be to take your analogy, one of taking my money management away from the accountant who hasn't screwed me yet, and giving it to my idiot neighbor who constantly writes bad checks, I'll pass for now.

Even though you have graduated, most Universities will help you find a job if you graduated from there. The jobs for entry level ( new graduate ) positions are not typically going to be posted on Monster, Hot Jobs, etc. since we look for those people at University Job fairs.I have been to many of these as a prospective employer, and there are always several Alumni who are there looking.